Let’s just say that he wouldn’t get an A in debate:
No VD, apparently, it’s the JOURNALIST here who has limited comprehension skills. Let’s review. (A) You pointed out that teaching is not a demanding job. The usual salvos against teachers were then lobbed by you and (your band of yes-men and polygamy-ready ‘wimmin.’) (B) I agreed that in certain cases, teaching is not difficult. (C) Then, I segued into a discussion on how the profession of JOURNALISM is not that difficult EITHER (despite the fact I’m aware VD has difficulty taking in that which he dishes out.)
First, it has been proven many times, and in a variety of ways, that teachers are vastly overpaid for less work and lower performance than would be acceptable anywhere in the private sector. They get away with this because most of them are unionized government employees; they are the equivalent of DMV employees.
Far from being yes-men, most of the regulars here – to say nothing of the readers – disagree with me on many things, including polygamy. Most of them don’t even support the same political party I do. This the teacher’s first demonstrably incorrect assertion, it is far from the last, as I am not a journalist and I don’t believe anyone here will accept the ludicrous notion that I have any difficulty in taking criticism.
I have never said that journalism is difficult, far from it. The chapters of Media Whores that were posted here previously would surely disabuse anyone of the notion that I think it is a difficult occupation – not profession – or a noble one.
One would suppose that a journalist distinguishing himself from other journalists by advertising himself as ‘a Christian libertarian’ would have prepared himself with at least an AWANA club CUBBIE’s level understanding of the word of God before expounding on any topic having to do with Biblical matters. Claiming to be a Christian journalist, your Bible knowledge is less than the mathematical proficiency of the LEAST prepared math teacher I’ve ever heard of been prepared in mathematics.
Again, I’m not a journalist. The teacher’s ability to debate, or lack of it, leads one to conclude that most of his discussions are held with such CUBBIES and fellow school teachers. It’s much harder to win an argument when you can’t monopolize the floor and threaten to dock the other individual’s grade, isn’t it, Mr. Teacher. As for your cogent, persuasive and well-documented case against the depth of my Biblical knowledge, I refute it thusly: is not!
First-time mothers have “the matrix opened” by firstborn children. First-time fathers do not. Your “convincing” defense for polygamy from the Bible’s book of Numbers (offered in your blog with the past month) fell apart. I’ve watched teachers who are big enough to admit mistakes and/or to offer to look up information they don’t have.
This teacher is so limited in his ability to comprehend what he reads that he does not realize that the defense for polygamy from the Book of Numbers was not mine. I merely posted it as an interesting way of looking at the issue, whereas my defense of the institution has three primary elements, none of which are based on Numbers: 1) the many examples of men favored by God who were married to more than one wife, 2) the requirement of a church elder to have but one wife, which implies that other members of the church may have more, and, 3) the negative fruit of monogamy, which can be seen in the soul sickness and dying populations of the West.
As I wrote before, it is ironic, if not troubling, to realize that the American church accepts that which the Bible tells us God hates and hates that which the Bible tells us God accepts.
Let’s see a journalist do the same.
And for the third time, I’m not a journalist and have never claimed to be one. I have admitted mistakes before. I will almost surely do so in the future. However, there is no reason for me to do so here, as this teacher has not pointed any out. While he is perfectly free to express his opinion about whatever he likes, a naked assertion is evidence of precisely nothing and neither asks for nor requires an admission of error.